Nano has a much smaller footprint (both memory and space-wise) than vi. It certainly isn't the best of text editors, but it gets the job done, at least for the install process.

Given that there's only about 4 files that you have to edit during the install process, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Personally, I like the small size of the stage 1 ISO, so I'd be opposed to anything that increased the size of that significantly unless there was a demonstrable need to do so. OTOH, it might be a nice option to add to the stage 3 CD, which is already fairly large. That's just my $.02, however.

BTW, I'll take vim over vi any day.

--kurt_________________The problem with political jokes is that they get elected

Nano has a much smaller footprint (both memory and space-wise) than vi.

Actually, that's not true, or at least it doesn't have to be.
How big "vi" is depends a lot on which flavor you're talking about.
nano takes 1,957,780 bytes of space, counting the libraries it has to have.
Here's a list of "vi"s and their sizes, libraries included. In all cases, "vi" is a link
to the program in question. Nano is in the list, too, for ease of comparison.

As you can see, the "ex" version of vi is actually smaller than nano. From playing around with it, it appears to have all the normal functionality of vi. (Doubtless, some of the fancier stuff is missing.)

klieber wrote:

Given that there's only about 4 files that you have to edit during the install process, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

That assumes that you have a perfect install where everything goes right, and you don't do any customization. On my first installation of gentoo, I had a problem with the neofb driver which caused a bunch of speckles all over the screen (and yes, this was in text mode, not X). I edited a LOT of stuff trying to debug that, and I finally made a link pointing "vi -> nano". It still gave me a lot of grief since it was still nano on the inside, but at least when I reflexively said "vi xyz" to check out or change something, it didn't bark back at me anymore.

klieber wrote:

Personally, I like the small size of the stage 1 ISO, so I'd be opposed to anything that increased the size of that significantly unless there was a demonstrable need to do so. OTOH, it might be a nice option to add to the stage 3 CD, which is already fairly large.

I can see keeping the ISO image under the size of the media you plan to put it on, but even the smallest BBC (bootable business card) is 21 meg, I believe. A normal one holds 50 meg. In either case, you could add quite a bit before it became a problem.

(One obvious argument in favor of a smaller image is download time. I consider that spurious, because if you're using the stage 1 ISO image, you're about to be downloading several hundred megabytes of packages, and spending several hours (or days...) of compile time. The additional time to download another meg or two on the ISO is negligible in comparison to that.)

As it happens, you don't need to add very much at all to get vi.

The "ex" version of vi uses three libraries:
/lib/libncurses.so.5
/lib/libc.so.6
/lib/ld-linux.so.2

All three of those are already on the stage 1 ISO, so you can get the "ex" version of vi for the cost of the executable (145,804 bytes) and a link.

I'm going to open up a bug to request it. Until I did the research, I didn't realize how little would be needed to get it, but I don't see much reason at all not to have it under the circumstances.

nice comment, Guest but I agree with klieber...
It doesn't make too much sense to included anything else or even replace nano...Nano is easy too use, very fast and that's it...there is no need for any other editor...After installation you can emerge vi anyway but as klieber already said most people have to edit 4 files and not more...

I have to agree - my number one frustration trying out Gentoo was the total lack of vi. nano reminds me a lot of pico. I just loath using editors that line wrap for editing unix configuration files, and having to use a commandline switch to disable it.

So anyways, I got through the install (grudgingly), and even after I'm done with bootstrap, emerge system, and rebooted to a new base gentoo installation, there is still no "vi". Apparently even in a fully loaded base system, nano is the only editor that's important.

So then I try to emerge vi - it compiles fine but segfaults. "emerge vim" finally fixed things for me, followed by "ln -sf /usr/bin/vim /usr/bin/vi".

Now, I'll concede that not everyone likes vi - and there's certainly a valid religious war between vi and emacs.... but I think it's a pretty accepted geek standard that vi is an integral part of any *nix - especially in a situation where you're going minimalist and don't have room for emacs. All other editors (especially ones like pico, joe, jed, NANO) are a joke. They're for writing documents and email perhaps, but not for editing source code and strictly-formatted configuration files.

To me (and I'm sure many others) a functional "vi" (or least ex, or even ed) is as integral to a functional *nix commandline setup as ls, rm, cp, mv, etc....

Should someone take a poll on including vi in the minimal iso? Perhaps even a secondary poll afterwards on removing nano?

Apparently even in a fully loaded base system, nano is the only editor that's important.

No, apparently Gentoo is a distro geared towards letting the user choose. For some strange reason, they want to let users select what apps get dumped on their system. That's why there's no logging system, cron package or MTA by default. (though installing a logger, of your choice, is part of the install process)

Also, your use of the term, "fully loaded base system" is a misnomer. A base gentoo install does not make for a fully-functional linux server. It simply offers the bare minimum components required across 99% of the installs out there. It's up to the sysadmin to install more apps from there to make the system useful. (and tailored to their needs)

ph317 wrote:

Now, I'll concede that not everyone likes vi - and there's certainly a valid religious war between vi and emacs.... but I think it's a pretty accepted geek standard that vi is an integral part of any *nix -

Which vi? I prefer vim, others prefer elvis, ex or even the original vi. Are you going to dictate what version I should have on my system?

ph317 wrote:

All other editors (especially ones like pico, joe, jed, NANO) are a joke. They're for writing documents and email perhaps, but not for editing source code and strictly-formatted configuration files.

That's your opinion, certainly. Other people like pico, joe, jed and yes, even NANO.

ph317 wrote:

To me (and I'm sure many others) a functional "vi" (or least ex, or even ed) is as integral to a functional *nix commandline setup as ls, rm, cp, mv, etc....

OK, but "to me" is a key phrase. Not everyone agrees with you, so what's the problem with giving the user a choice? If they want vi, it's one emerge command away (segfaults notwithstanding) If they prefer vim, they can have that, too. And if, god forbid, they just want plain old nano, well they don't have to install anything.

ph317 wrote:

Should someone take a poll on including vi in the minimal iso? Perhaps even a secondary poll afterwards on removing nano?

A feature request for adding vi to the iso has already been filed. Your suggestion to remove nano is, IMO, nonsense. You don't like it -- fine. Not everyone agrees with you. I was originally opposed to adding vi because I felt it would increase the size of the ISO too much. After the other anonymous poster pointed out that ex was even smaller than nano, why not give the user a choice? (for the record, I still don't think adding vi to the stage 1 iso is necessary, but I realize that's just my opinion and others might feel differently. So, I'm open to giving users a choice.)

--kurt (a vim fan who doesn't use nano, but doesn't think it's all that onerous to use during the install process)_________________The problem with political jokes is that they get elected